Difference between revisions of "Talk:Historically Important Electronic Medical Record Systems"
|Line 1:||Line 1:|
Latest revision as of 06:44, 4 September 2011
Clean up of the page
There can be a table with links to the systems, brief summary and year. This will give a good overview of the history.
I had initiated by making one for the first five.
Please install the Cite extension, so that references can be uniformly formatted! http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Cite/Cite.php#Installation
Split this article
Different types of articles are mixed up here. While the title is "Historically important EMR Systems", the articles contains company descriptions, programming languages, historically non-important EHRSs, and so on.
So I suggest a major clean up here, e.g.
historically important projects
- Akron General Hospital and IBM - Akron, Ohio
Hospital/Clinical Information Systems
This category is especially ambiguous, as many of those system do incorporate an EMR. But anyway, which are historically important?
- Brigham Integrated Computing System (BICS)
- Care2x Integrated Healthcare Open Source Environment
- Composite Health Care System (CHCS)
- Junzi No.1 Hospital Information System
- Lockheed-Martin / Technicon Data Systems (TDS)
- MEDHOST EDIS
- Patient Care Information System (PCIS)
- Three-layer Graph-based Model
- Technicon Medical Information System (TMIS)
Clinical Information Systems/Decision Support
- Health Evaluation through Logical Programming (HELP)
- Liang Zhang Han Expert System
- Problem-Knowledge Couplers
- Epic Systems
- MEDITECH (MIIS)
Personal Health Manager
- Comprehensive Health Enhancement Support System - CHESS
- Structured Data Entry
Classification is often not easy, and very ambiguous, and since I could only skimd over every single article, I may have done some mistakes here. Plus the categories are only simple suggestions, there are probably better ones. Please edit! But it seems pretty clear that the original purpose of "historically important" was lost. Or am I wrong and all of those are historically important? Anyway, I think this page should be split, and there is enough material to create more than one new page from it. --Manuel 22:31, 20 September 2009 (CDT)